Murphy Siding Guys- Let's try to keep this thread civil and focused on the railroad-related topic at hand.Thanks.-Norris user/moderator
Guys- Let's try to keep this thread civil and focused on the railroad-related topic at hand.Thanks.-Norris user/moderator
What's this apropos of? I see no lack of either civility or relevance in the discussion to date.
This thread is about the cost / value of HSR as judged by the state of Ohio. It seems logical to examine the cost / value of HSR in comparison to public spending for other forms of transportation, and what is being done in other states.
I have no idea why there would be a call for civility in this thread. And I really have no idea why hairs would be split on the topicality when we have such off-topic nonsense as the Eleanor Roosevelt thread.
Whatever happened to passenger service owned by class one freight lines. Government doesn't control that as much and IT COULD BE A BETTER ALTERNATIVE THAN AMTRAK
On topic: Here is what will happen to the Ohio, Wisconsin and other states' share of federal money.
http://chicagobreakingbusiness.com/2010/11/lahood-tells-wisconsin-governor-elect-to-stop-opposing-rail-project.html
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
Mr. Railman Whatever happened to passenger service owned by class one freight lines. Government doesn't control that as much and IT COULD BE A BETTER ALTERNATIVE THAN AMTRAK
The intercity passenger service operated by the various railroads was for the most part discontinued or taken over by Amtrak on May 1, 1971. The roads that did not join Amtrak wound up doing little more than postpone the day of reckoning.
Passenger service had been a money-losing proposition that collectively had not covered its solely related expenses since 1953. Most roads were willing to eat the losses in many cases because discontinuance involved a regulatory process that was slow, inconsistent, a public relations disaster and did not guarantee that the railroad would be allowed to discontinue the train(s) in question. The Transportation Act of 1958 sped up this process but it was still slow and inconsistent. The discontinuance of RPO contracts by the Post Office in the 1960's made the losses a lot worse. If it wasn't for Amtrak and the various local transit agencies, it would be questionable if there would be any passenger service of any kind today.
Privatize the interstates and let them charge tolls and pay real estate taxes and help reduce the deficite and make all public transportation, planes, trains, and buses, able to sustain themselves without subsidy.
daveklepper Privatize the interstates and let them charge tolls and pay real estate taxes and help reduce the deficite and make all public transportation, planes, trains, and buses, able to sustain themselves without subsidy.
Probably not workable with urban/suburban interstates, but those could be handed over to the states directly. Let them fund their own commuter roads - there's nothing national about them.
You'd also have to require that the new operators take the whole road, end to end, including all stubs and belts, in order to help maintain the network as a network.
And, it shouldn't be a sale, but a capital lease where it would "walk and talk" like private property for the term of the lease, but on default, it would go back to Uncle Sam to be re-let.
Also, hand the US highways over to the states - and let the states close them to through truck traffic or otherwise regulate the sizes and weights allowed, exempting local pickup and delivery
Of course, this is probably even more DOA than raising the Fed gas tax! .
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
To my surprise, in our morning paper Sec. LaHood: "To GOP governors, no trains....no money". Gov.-elect John Kasich thought he'd rather "use" the 400 million of federal funds pledged to the State's HSR program,,,,for other projects.
Like that approach....No trains...No money.
Quentin
Modelcar To my surprise, in our morning paper Sec. LaHood: "To GOP governors, no trains....no money". Gov.-elect John Kasich thought he'd rather "use" the 400 million of federal funds pledged to the State's HSR program,,,,for other projects. Like that approach....No trains...No money.
But, despite missing out on the federal money, it sounds like Kasich would rather forgoe the federal money than to accept it and then need to kick in state money for HSR. I doubt that Florida will be willing or able to come up with the state funds they will need in addition to the federal funds being offered for HSR.
The law that gives DOT authorization to obligate funds for FY2009 and FY2010 high-speed rail construction projects contains language that specifically limits obligation of funds to capital funds for construction (not maintenance) of qualifying high-speed rail projects. There is no authority in the law to obligate funds to non-qualifying high-speed rail projects, much less highways. The House conceivably could pass a new law that rescinded this requirement of the prior law, and that law could take effect following the approval of the Senate and the Administration. Until all that happens though, the wishes of Ohio's governor for reobligation to highways is just that, wishes.
RWM
Bucyrus,
The cost to the state to maintain HSR service once the infrastructure is built is negligible when it is spread out over the state. We here in Wisconsin would have been charged an additional $1.50 per household per year for our HSR program. That is less than what I spend on coffee in one day!!! Who in there right mind would pass up a deal like that!?!?!?
Not while Kasich is governor.He is quoted as saying there is NO passenger rail in Ohio's future.
If there are no dogs in heaven,then I want to go where they go.
I meant to respond to an earlier post,however it seems I can't respond to a particular post.How do you do that?I've been away for a while.
Kurn Not while Kasich is governor.He is quoted as saying there is NO passenger rail in Ohio's future.
......Of course, exactly what I would have expected out of him, under any circumstances.
Kurn I meant to respond to an earlier post,however it seems I can't respond to a particular post.How do you do that?I've been away for a while.
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
SRen Bucyrus, The cost to the state to maintain HSR service once the infrastructure is built is negligible when it is spread out over the state. We here in Wisconsin would have been charged an additional $1.50 per household per year for our HSR program. That is less than what I spend on coffee in one day!!! Who in there right mind would pass up a deal like that!?!?!?
Exactly, the cost is completely trivial.
And lower taxes would stimulate the economy if you're lowering middle class/lower class taxes, because those are the people who are savings poor and most involved in the economy....assuming those people aren't going out of their way to put their money in savings which is exactly what's happening right now.
Obama cut taxes and it did nothing for the economy. In the 1950s, the nominal tax rate for the richest was 90% and the economy trucked on.
The entire notion that a Tax rate change will have any major effect on the economy is utter bunk.
and to reiterate the fact that economy had been failing for a while, we never really recovered from the dot com bust. Perhaps you've all forgotten the little bonus check you got from the IRS during a couple of GWB's years in office. Those checked gave the economy a bump, but it settled right back down again.
Re-establishing a middle class, tax reforms and a progressive tax rate that realizes that the rich aren't the ones that spur the economy would go a long way to help, but would take probably too long to implement to be an immediate help.
As for discussions of the loss of an industrial economy. It is true, but it isn't universal. Intel just announced they're expanding their US plant operations. We still build cars. People talk about how California discourages business from starting up in the state, because of it's restrictive laws, but an actual look at California's statistics shows that it still leads in new business and small business startups. And one advantage California has it's its resurgent and effective intercity and intracity passenger rail systems.
If there is one thing the US government can do besides fund the infrastructure improvements that it has always funded to make this nation great, from the Louisiana purchase, to the homestead act, to the Transcontinental railroad, to the Interstate highway system, its that it can be active in promoting US trade interests around the world and not treat all countries as if they are playing by our rules.
I was reading an old Time feature from June on HSR. It mentioned the 3C proposal as one of those that made no sense: a slow overall speed so that the time from endpoint to endpoint would be considerably more than driving and at a higher price - consequently not much of a market.
Re: Wisconsin. Given the low price per citizen expressed above, the proposal makes some sense. But for a starter, wouldn't bringing MILW to CHI up closer to a true HSR make more sense? Two large metro areas and a nearly saturated Interstate 94 would make this 90 mile corridor a natural.
Murphy SidingThanks. Kurn: I meant to respond to an earlier post,however it seems I can't respond to a particular post.How do you do that?I've been away for a while. Click on <reply> on the post you want to respond to. When it jumps to the next page, that post will be at the top. Click on the <Quote> button at the lower right hand corner of that post. It will then show that post in the bottom part of the screen where you reply.
Kurn: I meant to respond to an earlier post,however it seems I can't respond to a particular post.How do you do that?I've been away for a while.
Kurn Murphy Siding: Thanks. Kurn: I meant to respond to an earlier post,however it seems I can't respond to a particular post.How do you do that?I've been away for a while. Click on <reply> on the post you want to respond to. When it jumps to the next page, that post will be at the top. Click on the <Quote> button at the lower right hand corner of that post. It will then show that post in the bottom part of the screen where you reply.
Murphy Siding: Thanks. Kurn: I meant to respond to an earlier post,however it seems I can't respond to a particular post.How do you do that?I've been away for a while. Click on <reply> on the post you want to respond to. When it jumps to the next page, that post will be at the top. Click on the <Quote> button at the lower right hand corner of that post. It will then show that post in the bottom part of the screen where you reply.
I'll try this again.thanks
Your more than $1.50 a day for coffee is a wasteful expenditure and so, probably, is the expansion of HSR in Wisconsin. (In Ohio, for Cleveland-Cincy, it is for sure.) But your casual dismissal of a line item of millions of dollars per year shows how so many states have gotten into budget trouble. Remember, too, that taxes are not paid on a per-household basis. For instance, how many households and businesses owe state income tax in Wisconsin?
Until the source of funding for the operating subsidy has been decided on by the Legislature, I doubt you have any idea where the money would come from or how much it would amount to per actual payer.
YoHo1975 As for Wisconsin. upgrading the speed on the Route From Chicago to Milwaukee is less easily done as it goes through a more populous area. Plus I thought it already was upgraded to some extent?
As for Wisconsin. upgrading the speed on the Route From Chicago to Milwaukee is less easily done as it goes through a more populous area. Plus I thought it already was upgraded to some extent?
I may be wrong about some of the details, but currently there are three routes between CHI - MILW:
1. the current CPR-Amtrak route. 2. the UP freight valley route. 3. the lakeshore UP (Metra only up to Kenosha) route. The latter route is supposed to have some of its bridges upgraded (on hold), and at least in Illinois is a straight line that is elevated and with grade separations in the congested suburbs and in Chicago. This line used to have fast C&NW passenger service to MILW prior to Amtrak. Perhaps it would be a better candidate for close-to-HSR, even though the trains would have to use Ogilvie Center in Chicago, two blocks north of Union.
I also had the thought while biking on the Great Western Trail (ex-CGW) west of Geneva that there are a number of fine former RoW's, as well as very lightly used RoW's, that could be turned into fast passenger-only rail lines.
I have deleted several posts, in an effort to get away from the purely political/partisan nature of the last dozen or so posts, and back to the original, railroad oriented topic at hand.-Norris user/moderator
igoldberg The Noretheast corridor is one of very few routes that DOES make money. That is one reason that Amtrak spend all that money to remove grade crossings and rebuild a couple of bridges.
The Noretheast corridor is one of very few routes that DOES make money. That is one reason that Amtrak spend all that money to remove grade crossings and rebuild a couple of bridges.
The NEC covered its operating costs during the first 11 months of FY10, but it did not cover the depreciation and interest expense attributable to the NEC. Accordingly, it is not correct to say that it made money.
During the first 11 months of this fiscal year the NEC turned in an operating profit of $55.3 million. The operating profit generated by the Acela trains of $97.6 million was offset in part by loses of $42.1 million for the regional trains and $.1 million for special operations. However, after accounting for depreciation and interest expense, the NEC probably lost between $383 and $447.6 million. Amtrak does not assign these charges to particular routes, but a reading of the annual reports suggests that 70 to 80 per cent of these charges are attributable to the NEC.
Dakotafred,
Please keep in mind that your opinion about what is wasteful spending is just that, an OPINION. What makes you think you know better than anyone else what spending is wasteful and what is not. You have no clue as to what my personal situation is and how it influences my morning beverage expenditures, what gives you idea that you know better than I what is wasteful? On the same vein, what info are you privy to that can give you the chutzpa to declare HSR expenditures as wasteful in Wisconsin?
As to your second point, while I concede the fact that the cost of HSR may not be equally distributed to all households, the fact still remains that the impact to any given individual's taxes will be negligible. If it turned out that people in my income bracket had to pay 10 times the average household cost of the project I still would not feel its impact. I would be happy to spend an extra $15 dollars a year to maintain a mass transit network in my state because I don't think it is wasteful.
SRen I would be happy to spend an extra $15 dollars a year to maintain a mass transit network in my state because I don't think it is wasteful.
I would be happy to spend an extra $15 dollars a year to maintain a mass transit network in my state because I don't think it is wasteful.
You are free to spend your money any way you want, but you are lecturing the rest of us on how to spend our money. If I had an extra $15 per year to burn, I would rather spend it to lower the debt than to buy HSR. The issue is that the country does not have the money to spend, not whether or not we spend money wastefully.
Bucyrus SRen: I would be happy to spend an extra $15 dollars a year to maintain a mass transit network in my state because I don't think it is wasteful. You are free to spend your money any way you want, but you are lecturing the rest of us on how to spend our money. If I had an extra $15 per year to burn, I would rather spend it to lower the debt than to buy HSR. The issue is that the country does not have the money to spend, not whether or not we spend money wastefully.
SRen: I would be happy to spend an extra $15 dollars a year to maintain a mass transit network in my state because I don't think it is wasteful.
I have to agree. We have to attack this insane debt before this entire economy comes crashing down like a house of cards.
There are a few things to remember here. Even if you go by the numbers given by the supporters of this plan, of which I have been one, it is an expensive proposition. For those of you who may not live in Ohio, we are looking at a budget deficit of several billion dollars and an unemployment rate of around 10%. So what do you do? Unlike the federal government we cannot run deficits and print money. So while it initially looks like "stimulus" money would get this done, remember that the future state subsidies that would be involved are substantial. Additionally, any comparison of this to the NEC is ludicrous. Cleveland, Columbus, and Cincinnati are not Washington, Philadelphia, and New York. At any rate, I have been a supporter, but when push comes to shove, the benefit will never justify the cost.
And with the kind of thinking we're hearing on such project....China will catch, pass, and leave us in the economic dust in the future.
Modelcar And with the kind of thinking we're hearing on such project....China will catch, pass, and leave us in the economic dust in the future.
That is certainly true if we don't get our budget deficits and national debt under control. I doubt it will happen because the Chinese are riding fast passenger trains while we drive or fly.
According to an editorial in the Washington Post on November 17, 2010 The Governors Elect in Ohio and Wisconsin who killed the so called high speed rail initiatives in their respective states did so out of concern for footing subsidies for the operating costs for their respective rail routes once the federal grants were used up. In any event the money slated for their states cannot be reprogrammed for other transportation projects within the states because it was appropriated by Congress for "high speed" rail transportation within the two states. Further, as I understand it, if the money Congress appropriated for high speed rail service in Wisconsin and Ohio were forfitted by those states it isdoubtful if it could be reprogrammed by the Federal Railroad administration for high speed rail in other states without another act of Congress.
The passenger service envisioned in Ohio was a 79 mph top speed train between Cleveland and Cincinnati which is nowhere near high speed rail. Are any higher speed routes between Cincinnati and Cleveland planned?. Another question is how many Cleveland-Cincinnati round trips are envisioned each day? If it is one round trip per day it is doubtful if just one round trip a day between Cleveland and Cincinnati would remove that much traffic from I 71 to make the expenditure worthwhile
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.